🚀 go-pugleaf

The entire non-issue of the automated registration is a perfect example of
how the whining anti-Microsoft community will ignore every published
attempt in an effort to propagate their narrow minded rhetoric.

Case in point.  MS announces that as an >optional< service to users they
will speed up the registration process by providing a utility to scan
their system automatically.  Not mandatory.  Clearly documented as
optional during setup.  Can be performed manually if that is what a user
desires.  In short?  An example of Microsoft providing a more >user
friendly< registration process.

Anti-microsoft people should be absolutely ashamed of how they have bent
and twisted this non-issue.  The world at this point knows the facts; the
more you post drivel about this being some evil sinister conspiracy the
more foolish you look.

Are the operating systems you are using so poor that you must distort
press releases and outright lie to make Microsoft look bad?  Certainly
looks that way...

Don

DonRawlins (donrawlins@aol.com) wrote:
: The entire non-issue of the automated registration is a perfect example of
: how the whining anti-Microsoft community will ignore every published
: attempt in an effort to propagate their narrow minded rhetoric.

: Case in point.  MS announces that as an >optional< service to users they
: will speed up the registration process by providing a utility to scan
: their system automatically.  Not mandatory.  Clearly documented as
: optional during setup.  Can be performed manually if that is what a user
: desires.  In short?  An example of Microsoft providing a more >user
: friendly< registration process.

: Anti-microsoft people should be absolutely ashamed of how they have bent
: and twisted this non-issue.  The world at this point knows the facts; the
: more you post drivel about this being some evil sinister conspiracy the
: more foolish you look.

: Are the operating systems you are using so poor that you must distort
: press releases and outright lie to make Microsoft look bad?  Certainly
: looks that way...

: Don


Yes, indeed, the people have a choice.  They can say no to the registration
wizard, or they can say no to installing Windows 95 altogether. 

Rgds,


Chris



-- 
Rei Hino/Sailor Mars 	Ami Mizuno/Sailor Mercury 	Minako Aino/Sailor
Venus		Makoto Kino/Sailor Jupiter 	Haruka Tenoh/Sailor
Uranus		Michiru Kaioh/Sailor Neptune 	Setsuna Meioh/Sailor Pluto 
Usagi Tsukino/Sailor Moon	   *****crobato@kuentos.guam.net*****

In article <40jjff$qtc@newsbf02.news.aol.com> DonRawlins,
donrawlins@aol.com writes:
>Anti-microsoft people should be absolutely ashamed of how they have bent
>and twisted this non-issue.  The world at this point knows the facts; the
>more you post drivel about this being some evil sinister conspiracy the
>more foolish you look.
>
>Are the operating systems you are using so poor that you must distort
>press releases and outright lie to make Microsoft look bad?  Certainly
>looks that way...
>
>Don

Well, I'm not whining, but just take a look at the facts.  First,
Microsoft
publicly denied that the registration wizard sends all this info about
your
computer.  Then, somebody used a packet-sniffer (or something, I forget
which)
to show that it really did send the info to MS.  All of the sudden,
Microsoft
is pretending they never said that and is saying it was a feature they
added
to enhance their quality of service or something.

Admit it, doing easy registration, and collecting info about everything
installed
on your machine are not the same thing!

It is one thing when people know this is happening, but they were trying
to
say it wasn't happening!  That would really bug me. >:^(

Steve Bakke
Computer Engineering
University of Cincinnati

donrawlins@aol.com (DonRawlins) wrote:
>
>Anti-microsoft people should be absolutely ashamed of how they have bent
>and twisted this non-issue.  The world at this point knows the facts; the
>more you post drivel about this being some evil sinister conspiracy the
>more foolish you look.

How can the world know the facts???  I don't have a copy of the Microsoft
sources to study, do you?  I don't trust Microsoft.

>
>Are the operating systems you are using so poor that you must distort
>press releases and outright lie to make Microsoft look bad?  Certainly
>looks that way...
>

The only OS I use which is of such low quality that lies are required
in its' defence is DOS/Windows.  As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft is
the left hand of the devil.  Asking hard questions and immagining
plausable senarios is perfectly valid when one cannot get the data
necessary to actually know what something does.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Free UNIX!

In article <40ies7$10c@itsmail1.hamilton.edu>,
jmalloy@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Joseph T. Malloy) wrote:
> >Given Microsoft's obvious lack of respect for the
> >intellectual property of others (Stac, Apple, etc.), fearing it is not
> >irrational.  
> 
> That's not a given.  If you don't think that lawsuits are a way of life
> for major (and minor!) corporations, you just aren't aware of the
> litigious nature of the American Way (tm) (Apple lost, by the way).  It's
> irrational because (let me say this clearly) YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT! 

    I think he's refering to the current lawsuit, where Apple is suing M$
because 20,000+ lines of code in QuickTime for Windows "mysteriously"
appeared in M$'s Video for Windows.     (At last report, M$ downgraded to
a earlier version that didn't have the stolen code, but still denies any
wrongdoing, or even admits that the code was stolen in the first
place.)    Last I heard, that court case was still in the courts, and a
ruling hasn't been made, though industry analysis tends to feel that Apple
will win, based on evidence, and the fact that M$ has done this in the
past, (M$ vs. Stac, where the courts ruled that M$ illegally used code
from Stacker in M$-DOS 6, and had M$ pay damages to Stac for the illegal
use.)

   - Patrick McKinnion

-- 
-Brought to you by "Ouchies", the sharp, prickly toy you bathe with...
-------------------------
(The Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this post in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Patrick McKinnion, 1995. License to distribute this post is available to The Microsoft Network for US$1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.   Please report violations to postmaster@msn.net)

DonRawlins (donrawlins@aol.com) wrote:
: The entire non-issue of the automated registration is a perfect example of
: how the whining anti-Microsoft community will ignore every published
: attempt in an effort to propagate their narrow minded rhetoric.

: Case in point.  MS announces that as an >optional< service to users they
: will speed up the registration process by providing a utility to scan
: their system automatically.  Not mandatory.  Clearly documented as
: optional during setup.  Can be performed manually if that is what a user
: desires.  In short?  An example of Microsoft providing a more >user
: friendly< registration process.

First of all, a registration process should only require me to send my name
and the serial number of the copy if W95 I run in. NOTHING else is required
for "registration" purposes. So all the other information beeing gathered
has to be for other reasons. The only other thing I can think of that they need
the information for, is when customers phone up Microsoft when something does 
not work. But then, wasn't W95 plug and play??? Conclusion: they gather
information for efficient marketing strategies and other purposes that we
don't know about are are too dumb to imagine. Let's try anyways: if you know 
what the average Joe-PC-user has on his desk you can customize your products 
accordingly and sell more stuff.

Secondly, a bit of order of magnitude MATH can show how much market advantage 
Microsoft can gain with their Installation-Wizard. The following number were 
overheard on last night's news: ``30 Million W95 copies are expected to be 
sold until the end of the year.'' 

I think it will be more, but anyways let's work with 30 Million W95 users.
Let's assume that 20% of the people are or will be networked and that only
5% of these will let the Wizard scan the machine (for whatever reasons).

	30000000 users * 0.2 * 0.05 = 300000 scanned and archived

Quite impressive database for a 4 month period - don't you think? 
Just imagine the fleets of laywers going out prosecuting users of illegal
software - say another 5% are stupid enough to let the Wizard scan while
using an illegal copy of Word - 15000 (quite legit) lawsuits at, say, $5000
	
	300000 scanned * 0.05 * $5000 per conviction = $75000000

well, another 75 Million added to the Microsoft empire. If they do it is
another question.


Just my 2 cents to the debate.
Andreas

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------_
 Saskatoon Linux Group  http://www.cs.usask.ca/~ddb132/slg/slghome.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------_
   andreas@karlsberg.usask.ca              andreas@milo.usask.ca 
    schifflr@debye.usask.ca              schiffler@skisas.usask.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------_

In article <Brghteye-1308952234390001@calvin.cts.com>, Patrick McKinnion (Brghteye@cts.com) spake unto us, thusly saying:

:     I think he's refering to the current lawsuit, where Apple is suing M$
: because 20,000+ lines of code in QuickTime for Windows "mysteriously"
: appeared in M$'s Video for Windows.     (At last report, M$ downgraded to

MS didn't even write that particular hunk of code.  Canyon did.  Canyon 
sold it to MS.  If anyone is in trouble, it may be Canyon.  However, I 
seem to recall that Apple did not purchase the rights to the code.  They 
only purchased the right to use the code.  BIG difference...

--
Jason Costomiris                     | Finger for PGP 2.6.2 Public Key
jcostom@netaxs.com                   |   "...You'll sweat grease."
My employers like me, but not enough |     --overheard outside the new
to let me speak for them.            |        restaurant, "Everything Pork."

	        	http://www.netaxs.com/~jcostom

>First of all, a registration process should only require me to send my name
>and the serial number of the copy if W95 I run in. NOTHING else is required
>for "registration" purposes. So all the other information beeing gathered
>has to be for other reasons. The only other thing I can think of that they need
>the information for, is when customers phone up Microsoft when something does 
>not work. But then, wasn't W95 plug and play??? Conclusion: they gather
>information for efficient marketing strategies and other purposes that we
>don't know about are are too dumb to imagine. Let's try anyways: if you know 
>what the average Joe-PC-user has on his desk you can customize your products 
>accordingly and sell more stuff.
>


You missed a cruicial fact about plug & play:

andreas@karlsberg.usask.ca (Andreas Schiffler) wrote:
>DonRawlins (donrawlins@aol.com) wrote:
>: The entire non-issue of the automated registration is a perfect example of
>: how the whining anti-Microsoft community will ignore every published
>: attempt in an effort to propagate their narrow minded rhetoric.
>
>: Case in point.  MS announces that as an >optional< service to users they
>: will speed up the registration process by providing a utility to scan
>: their system automatically.  Not mandatory.  Clearly documented as
>: optional during setup.  Can be performed manually if that is what a user
>: desires.  In short?  An example of Microsoft providing a more >user
>: friendly< registration process.
>
>First of all, a registration process should only require me to send my name
>and the serial number of the copy if W95 I run in. NOTHING else is required
>for "registration" purposes. So all the other information beeing gathered
>has to be for other reasons. The only other thing I can think of that they need
>the information for, is when customers phone up Microsoft when something does 
>not work. But then, wasn't W95 plug and play??? Conclusion: they gather
>information for efficient marketing strategies and other purposes that we
>don't know about are are too dumb to imagine. Let's try anyways: if you know 
>what the average Joe-PC-user has on his desk you can customize your products 
>accordingly and sell more stuff.


You missed a crucial fact about plug & play:
   
    In order to use plug and play you must have 4 things:
        -Plug & Play system BIOS
        -Plug & Play devices and their drivers
        -Plug & Play aware operating system
        -Plug & Play aware applications.

With Win95 you have one (maybe two) of these four things:
the OS and applications (in this case, applets that are
a part of the OS).

Since MOST computers on the desks of the world are NOT
plug and play bios & devices, isn't it conceivable that
these users might need a little help getting their system
running?  As much in Win95 as in any other DOS?  Is it not
conceivable that the average user doesn't know a whole lot
about the hardware in his computer?  Is it not conceivable
that the support technician might want some precise 
information about that system, such as hardware and/or
software that might be causing conflicts?  Is it at all
concievable that the person on the phone doesn't really
care how you acquired your copy of PageMaker, that they
just want to solve the problem so they can get on to the
next customer?

Tech Support is just people, too.  Lighten up.

Jason Costomiris (jcostom@netaxs.com) wrote:
: In article <Brghteye-1308952234390001@calvin.cts.com>, Patrick McKinnion (Brghteye@cts.com) spake unto us, thusly saying:

: :     I think he's refering to the current lawsuit, where Apple is suing M$
: : because 20,000+ lines of code in QuickTime for Windows "mysteriously"
: : appeared in M$'s Video for Windows.     (At last report, M$ downgraded to

: MS didn't even write that particular hunk of code.  Canyon did.  Canyon 
: sold it to MS.  If anyone is in trouble, it may be Canyon.  However, I 
: seem to recall that Apple did not purchase the rights to the code.  They 
: only purchased the right to use the code.  BIG difference...

Actually, Apple commissioned Canyon to port Apple code over to MS 
Windows. Canyon's contract stipulated that Canyon wouldn't work 
on a similar project for another platform. NOt only did they 
write something similar for Intel, but TWO THOUSAND lines of 
source code identical to the Canyon-ported code ended up in 
INtel's product. 

Even worse, the theft was discovered when a sample application 
written by an APple engineer showing 
how to use the relevant portion of the QTW API showed up on CompuServe as 
well as on the MS developer's CD, billsed as sample code on how to use the 
VFW API 
that accomplished the same thing. NOt only did Canyon scarf the code that 
they ported over, they scarfed the sample code that was written by Apple 
engineers completely at Apple.

MS was informed of the issue and refused to admit that there was a problem.

That's where the lawsuit came in.

Intel backed down, AFAIK, as soon as they saw the evidence. MS is trying 
to tough it out.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <40vbn0$hs9@netaxs.com>, jcostom@netaxs.com (Jason Costomiris) wrote:

> In article <Brghteye-1308952234390001@calvin.cts.com>, Patrick McKinnion
(Brghteye@cts.com) spake unto us, thusly saying:
> 
> :     I think he's refering to the current lawsuit, where Apple is suing M$
> : because 20,000+ lines of code in QuickTime for Windows "mysteriously"
> : appeared in M$'s Video for Windows.     (At last report, M$ downgraded to
> 
> MS didn't even write that particular hunk of code.  Canyon did.  Canyon 
> sold it to MS.  If anyone is in trouble, it may be Canyon.  However, I 
> seem to recall that Apple did not purchase the rights to the code.  They 
> only purchased the right to use the code.  BIG difference...

I'm sorry if my complaining is getting tiresome, but where the hell do all
the bad facts come from? That was wrong from start to end.

OK, Microsoft has THE PR budget and trade rags seldom give bad reviews
about their largest advertising accounts, but this is just too much wrong.

Could you give a reference to your "facts", please, Jason? It should be
interesting to see where all this garbage comes from. You just didn't
invent it, did you?

Should disinformation as a society fenomenom be a large research area?

(Thank you Lawson for answering such stupidities!)

-- 
Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC      |    :  #'''    | UDAC is quite a fun place,
(Uppsala Univ. Comp. Centre) |    :  #       | but they don't necessarily
Bernt.Budde@udac.uu.se       |    :#####:    | agree with my opinions. And
                             |       #  :    | they don't care about
Impeach god                  |       #  :    | religion!
 /Richard M Stallman         |    ...#  :    |

Before being shocked, consider what is the worst dogma:
Accepting murder of millions of people or
accepting unending torture for millions of people.

In <40vbn0$hs9@netaxs.com> jcostom@netaxs.com (Jason Costomiris) writes:

>In article <Brghteye-1308952234390001@calvin.cts.com>, Patrick McKinnion (Brghteye@cts.com) spake unto us, thusly saying:

>:     I think he's refering to the current lawsuit, where Apple is suing M$
>: because 20,000+ lines of code in QuickTime for Windows "mysteriously"
>: appeared in M$'s Video for Windows.     (At last report, M$ downgraded to

>MS didn't even write that particular hunk of code.  Canyon did.  Canyon 
>sold it to MS.  If anyone is in trouble, it may be Canyon.  However, I 

Hold on ... are you saying that if someone steals $100k from a bank and
"donates" it to me, that I'm not going to be held at all liable for the
money I was given?  According to the law, purchasing stolen goods is as
illegal as stealing them yourself.

--
T |        Christopher Curtis       |      In order to understand      | O
E |   Sun Lab System Administrator  |     recursion, one must first    | S
A | Florida Institute of Technology |       understand recursion.      | /
M |       Melbourne, Florida       N|N                                 | 2

In article <ccurtis.808764935@ee.fit.edu>,
Christopher W. Curtis <ccurtis@ee.fit.edu> wrote:

>>MS didn't even write that particular hunk of code.  Canyon did.  Canyon 
>>sold it to MS.  If anyone is in trouble, it may be Canyon.  However, I 

>Hold on ... are you saying that if someone steals $100k from a bank and
>"donates" it to me, that I'm not going to be held at all liable for the
>money I was given?  According to the law, purchasing stolen goods is as
>illegal as stealing them yourself.

First things first, donation is not the same as purchase. . .

Now, to the argument at hand:  Apple has tried to sue people before for 
stuff that they didn't own: remember the "look-and-feel" lawsuits of the 
mid-80's ????

Methinks that if Canyon wrote the code, Apple had best look at its' 
agreement with Canyon FIRST: Canyon may well have sold Apple rights to 
USE the code, but maintained ownership and control of the code. . . 

Mind you, the lawyers will have to settle the whole mess. . .



-- 
*     Keith A. Glass,  Fairfax, Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large  *
*  Geek Code (V3.0):  GS  d++  s:++  a C++ UBLS P+ W+ N+++ K++ w+ O M+  *
* PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5++ X++ R tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e++ h-/-- r-- y+ *
* PGP FINGERPRINT = DD 80 F5 04 DF 3F 2D 94 08 BE AB FD A3 9A C3 31     *

: Admit it, doing easy registration, and collecting info about everything
: installed
: on your machine are not the same thing!


  Well said !!!!! 


: It is one thing when people know this is happening, but they were trying
: to
: say it wasn't happening!  That would really bug me. >:^(

In article <412iho$imv@DGS.dgsys.com>, salgak@dgs.dgsys.com (Keith Glass) writes:

|> Now, to the argument at hand:  Apple has tried to sue people before for 
|> stuff that they didn't own: remember the "look-and-feel" lawsuits of the 
|> mid-80's ????

Apple owns a copyright on the Macintosh "look-and-feel".  They tried
to protect that copyright by suing someone whose look and feel was
"too similar". 

|> Methinks that if Canyon wrote the code, Apple had best look at its' 
|> agreement with Canyon FIRST: Canyon may well have sold Apple rights to 
|> USE the code, but maintained ownership and control of the code. . . 

Apple wrote Quicktime code, and paid Canyon to port Apple's code to
the windows platform.  It was all Apple's code, and the contract
contained a "do not compete" clause. 

|> Mind you, the lawyers will have to settle the whole mess. . .

Yup.

Chris
-- 
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@aol.com

christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) wrote:
>In article <412iho$imv@DGS.dgsys.com>, salgak@dgs.dgsys.com (Keith Glass) writes:
>
>|> Now, to the argument at hand:  Apple has tried to sue people before for 
>|> stuff that they didn't own: remember the "look-and-feel" lawsuits of the 
>|> mid-80's ????
>
>Apple owns a copyright on the Macintosh "look-and-feel".  They tried
>to protect that copyright by suing someone whose look and feel was
>"too similar". 
>

It would be more correct to say that Apple claims ownership of a copyright.
Am I correct that they were not successfull in making that claim of ownership
stick?

-- 
Jim Williams.

Find a Linux/GNU User Group near you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/